[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1379-S1381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              TERM LIMITS

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first I would like to thank my colleague 
from Missouri for taking the lead on this important issue of term-
limits. Term-limits has been a concern of the people of Colorado for 
many years. They have said time and time again that the hour has come 
for Congressional term-limits and I share this belief. That is why I am 
a proud sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 16, the Ashcroft-Thompson 
Term Limitation bill which limits Representatives to 6 years in the 
House and Senators to 12 years in the Senate.
  In 1990 with 71 percent of the vote, the State of Colorado was the 
first State to pass a constitutional amendment limiting the number of 
years for Congressional Members--12 years in the House of 
Representatives and 12 years in the Senate. Four years later, Colorado 
passed a more restrictive term limit initiative of 6 years in the House 
and 12 years in the Senate. Since 1990, 22 other States passed some 
form of term-limits with the support of over 25 million Americans. 
However, in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that State set term-limits 
for Federal officials were unconstitutional. With the Supreme Court's 
decision in mind, Colorado voters passed amendment 12 in 1996. The Term 
Limits Initiative calls for Colorado's elected officials to introduce 
term-limit legislation, vote in favor of the Congressional Term Limits 
Amendment, and states that if a member of the congressional delegation 
does not vote in favor of the amendment then the designation of 
disregarded voter instruction on term-limits next to their name on the 
ballot.
  Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to insert into 
the Record a copy of the amendment 12 language at the end of my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, while I believe that States should have 
the opportunity to set limits for their elected officials, as Colorado 
has done on a number of occasions, the Supreme Court's decision has 
left this important decision up to us. Some have argued that there is 
little chance that Members of Congress will ever limit their own terms 
and thereby limit their power. While there is some merit to this 
argument, I must say that this gives us a great opportunity to show 
that we, as elected officials, can heed the will of the people and 
impose term-limits on ourselves.
  I began fighting for term-limits while in the State Senate of 
Colorado and was one of four State Senators to stand-up on the Colorado 
Senate floor in favor of them. As a Member of the House of 
Representatives, I introduced and co-sponsored numerous pieces of term-
limit legislation. I was very proud to be a part of the 104th Congress 
where we voted for the first time in history on a term-limit 
constitutional amendment.
  I have always believed that our elected officials should be citizen 
legislators. Citizens from all walks of life with new ideas, thoughts 
and private work experience fresh in their memory should have a chance 
to serve. Term-limits will ensure that lawmakers do not become too far-
removed from their constituents and will allow more citizens the 
opportunity to serve. Our legislatures will have a better understanding 
of main street and how their laws and actions affect the everyday lives 
of working men and women.
  We find the concept of a citizen legislature in the very foundation 
of this country. In Article 57 of the Federalist Papers, my most 
admired historical figure, James Madison wrote:

       The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, 
     first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to 
     discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of 
     society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual 
     precautions for keeping them virtuous whilest they continue 
     to hold their public trust. The elective mode of obtaining 
     rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government. 
     The means relied on in this form of government for preventing 
     their degeneracy are numerous and various. The most effectual 
     one is such a limitation of the term of appointments as will 
     maintain a proper responsibility to the people.

  Mr. President, I wholehearted agree with Mr. Madison and his 
assessment. Despite the large classes in 1994 and 1996, incumbent re-
election rates still exceed 90 percent. Term-limits at the State and 
local levels have made our elections more open and competitive thereby 
opening the doors to all Americans and allowing for a more diverse 
legislature. Federal elections would be re-energized by opening-up 
politics to many people who have been excluded by career incumbents. If 
people call for more representation by women and minorities, then they 
should be strong supporters of term-limits. In 1992, 22 of the 24 new 
women elected to the U.S. House of Representatives were elected in open 
seats, but only 2 of the 42 women candidates who challenged an 
incumbent were successful.
  While I agree with many who call for campaign finance reform, only 
term-limits will truly change the incentives for seeking office. They 
are a positive tool to break the cycle of excluding those citizens who 
want to run for election to Federal office but cannot overcome the 
largest obstacle of all--incumbency and name identification--regardless 
of the campaign laws and the amount spent on a campaign.
  I have also heard that if the Framers believed term-limits were so 
important, they would have placed them in the Constitution from the 
outset. This is the same argument I hear concerning the Balanced Budget 
amendment. My belief is that the Framers never thought persistent 
deficits or spending one's career in political office would be a 
problem. They believed that serving would always be a brief period in 
one's life and would never be seen as a career. However, it is now 
clear that only a Constitutional amendment getting term-limits will 
ensure that the citizen legislator is reestablished as envisioned by 
the Framers of the Constitution.
  I am pleased to carry on the tradition and hard work of my 
predecessor Senator Hank Brown. Senator Brown was a leader in this body 
for term-limits and I am proud to serve in a like manner and continue 
to fight for term-limits and the will of the people of Colorado.
  Mr. President, early in this session, we will have an opportunity to 
make good on our campaign promises on term-limits. We must bring 
business-as-usual to an end and return the power back to the people. I 
urge all my colleagues to join this fight and begin to make true 
changes in the way this Congress operates. It is time to bring back the 
citizen legislator and reconnect our elected officials to the people 
whom they serve.

                               Exhibit 1

             Proposal of Text of Amendment 12--Term Limits

       Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
       Article XVIII, section 12.
       (1) Congressional term limits amendment.
       The exact language for addition to the United States 
     Constitution follows:
       Section 1: No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Representative for more than three terms, but upon 
     ratification of this amendment no person who has held the 
     office of United States Representative or who then holds the 
     office shall serve for more than two additional terms.
       Section 2: No person shall serve in the office of United 
     States Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification 
     of this amendment no person who has held the office of United 
     States Senator or who then holds the office shall serve for 
     more than one additional term.
       Section 3: This amendment shall have no time limit within 
     which it must be ratified to become operative upon the 
     ratification of the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
     several states.
       (2) Voter instruction to state legislators.
       (a) The voters instruct each state legislator to vote to 
     apply for an amendment-proposing convention under Article V 
     of the United States Constitution and to ratify the 
     Congressional Term Limits Amendment when referred to the 
     states.
       (b) All election ballots shall have ``disregarded voter 
     instruction on term limits'' designated next to the name of 
     each state legislator who fails to comply with the terms of 
     subsection (5)(b).
       (c) Said ballot designation shall not appear after the 
     Colorado legislature has made an Article V application that 
     has not been withdrawn and has ratified the Congressional 
     Term Limits Amendment, when proposed.
       (3) Voter instruction to members of congress.
       (a) The voters instruct each member of the congressional 
     delegation to approve the Congressional Term Limits 
     Amendment.

[[Page S1380]]

       (b) All election ballots shall have ``disregarded voter 
     instruction on term limits'' designated next to the name of 
     each member of Congress who fails to comply with the terms of 
     subsection (5)(b).
       (c) Said ballot designation shall not appear after the 
     Congressional Term Limits Amendment is before the states for 
     ratification.
       (4) Voter instruction to non-incumbents.
       The words ``declined to take pledge to support term 
     limits'' shall be designated on all primary and general 
     election ballots next to the names of non-incumbent 
     candidates for United States senator, United States 
     representative, state senator, and state representative who 
     have not signed the pledge to support term limits unless the 
     Colorado legislature has ratified the Congressional Term 
     Limits Amendment.
       The pledge shall read:
       I pledge to use all my legislative powers to enact the 
     proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth in 
     Article XVIII, section 12. If elected, I pledge to vote in 
     such a way that the designation ``disregarded voter 
     instruction term limits'' will not appear next to my name.
       Signature of Candidate:
       (5) Designation process.
       (a) The Colorado secretary of state shall determine these 
     ballot designations. The ballot designation shall appear 
     unless clear and convincing evidence establishes that the 
     candidate has honored voter instructions or signed the pledge 
     in this subsection (4). Challenges to designation or lack of 
     designation shall be filed with the Colorado supreme court 
     within 5 days of the determination and shall be decided 
     within 21 days after filing. Determinations shall be made 
     public 30 days or more before the Colorado secretary of state 
     certifies the ballot.
       (b) Non-compliance with voter instruction is demonstrated 
     by any of the following actions with respect to the 
     application or ratification by state legislators, and in the 
     case of members of Congress referring the Congressional Term 
     Limits Amendment for ratification, if the legislator:
       (i) fails to vote in favor when brought to a vote;
       (ii) fails to second if it lacks one;
       (iii) fails to vote in favor of all votes bringing the 
     measure before any committee in which he or she serves;
       (iv) fails to propose or otherwise bring to a vote of the 
     full legislative body, if necessary;
       (v) fails to vote against any attempt to delay, table or 
     otherwise prevent a vote by the full legislative body or 
     committee;
       (vi) fails in any way to ensure that all votes are recorded 
     and made available to the public;
       (vii) fails to vote against any change, addition or 
     modification; or
       (viii) fails to vote against any amendment with longer 
     limits than the Congressional Term Limits Amendment.
       (6) Enforcement.
       Any legal challenge to this section 12 shall be an original 
     action filed with the Colorado supreme court. All terms of 
     this section 12 are severable.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the pending nomination 
of Mr. Federico Pena, who has been nominated to serve as Secretary of 
Energy. The Armed Services Committee recently held a hearing to receive 
testimony from Mr. Pena on his views and positions relative to 
Department of Energy Programs that fall within the jurisdiction of the 
Armed Services Committee.
  The purpose of the hearing was to explore Mr. Pena's proposals for 
the Department's critical national security programs and to allow him 
the opportunity to establish a coherent record of his views regarding 
these programs. The Committee felt such a record needed to be 
established, because Mr. Pena has no background in national security 
matters and, prior to last week's hearing, he had no identifiable 
position on defense issues that Senators could use to assess his 
suitability to manage the Department's diverse national security 
activities.
  I want to state very clearly that the purpose of this hearing was to 
provide Mr. Pena with an opportunity to discuss his views. It was never 
our intent to delay his nomination or to interfere with the customary 
reporting process for his nomination in any way. I worked very closely 
with Senator Murkowski to ensure that this hearing focused only on the 
Department's defense missions and did not infringe on the Energy 
Committee's jurisdiction. Senator Murkowski was exceptionally helpful 
in coordinating the activities of our two committees and I applaud his 
leadership in this matter.
  Regarding Mr. Pena's qualifications, let me say that I find him to be 
intelligent, thoughtful, and a quick study. If confirmed, I believe he 
will bring much-needed management ability to the Department--something 
that has been lacking for the past 4 years. However, the members of the 
Armed Services Committee take the Department of Energy's national 
security and defense environmental cleanup missions very seriously. It 
is our responsibility to thoroughly assess the qualifications of those 
nominated to head this agency and make public our findings and 
concerns.
  Mr. President, for some time now, the Armed Services Committee has 
expressed its concern regarding the Department's approach to 
maintaining the reliability and safety of the Nation's enduring nuclear 
weapons stockpile. We are concerned that the Department's proposed 
Science-based Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan may 
unnecessarily put our enduring nuclear forces at risk--both in terms of 
safety and reliability. We are concerned that the Department's plan to 
restore tritium production capabilities are not realistic and won't 
deliver the required quantities of tritium in the timeframe needed by 
the Department of Defense. We are further concerned that the pace of 
cleanup at former nuclear defense facilities may not be aggressive 
enough to meet the Department's stated 10-year cleanup goal.
  We discussed these issues and others with Mr. Pena and generally 
found his responses to be informed and reasoned. Unfortunately, on at 
least two critical issues, Mr. Pena's testimony caused some level of 
concern.
  When asked what action he would take in a hypothetical situation 
where he was informed by all three DOE weapons laboratory directors 
that a significant safety problem existed in a nuclear weapon in the 
U.S. stockpile and that the only feasible way to fix that problem was 
to conduct an under-ground nuclear test, Mr. Pena stated that he would 
present the relevant information to the President, but steadfastly 
refused to acknowledge his responsibility to make a test or don't test 
recommendation to the President. I found his response troubling.
  Mr. President, as the U.S. nuclear stockpile ages, the hypothetical 
situation I just described is not only plausible, but one that we could 
face in the very near future. Unfortunately, Mr. Pena's response was 
less than forthright. We expect every Cabinet Secretary to present all 
the relevant information to the President, but in this hypothetical, 
the Secretary would be required to do more than that. This situation 
requires that the Secretary of Energy make a recommendation to the 
President. Mr. Pena's refusal to commit to making such a recommendation 
raised considerable doubt regarding his understanding of the role that 
the Secretary of Energy plays in advising the President on nuclear 
matters and leads me to question his willingness to carry out the 
responsibilities of the Secretary of Energy.

  My fear is that Mr. Pena does not recognize that our current 
confidence in the U.S. nuclear stockpile could diminish rapidly in the 
near future. The next Secretary of Energy must understand this reality 
and demonstrate a commitment to take all actions necessary to maintain 
the safety and reliability of our enduring nuclear deterrent. If he is 
confirmed, I hope to work closely with Mr. Pena to ensure the 
Department does not back away from its obligations in this area.
  I also found Mr. Pena's commitment to restore U.S. tritium production 
less than satisfactory.
  For my colleagues who do not know, tritium is a radioactive gas that 
is required in all modern nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile. 
Without tritium, our nuclear weapons cannot function. Because tritium 
decays at a rate of 5 and 5\1/2\ percent per year, it must be replaced 
in weapons at regular intervals. The U.S. stopped producing tritium in 
1988 and current supplies are being exhausted.
  The Department has pursued nearly a dozen different technical options 
for tritium production--at great cost to the taxpayers--and we are 
still no closer to restoring tritium production today than we were 
almost a decade ago. Meanwhile, our supply of tritium continues to 
degrade and our nuclear deterrent, which has served to protect this 
Nation for over 50 years, becomes incrementally less effective with 
each passing year.
  Congress has consistently directed the Department to move more 
quickly to restore tritium production. In fact, the fiscal year 1997 
Defense Authorization Act required DOE to make a decision on tritium 
this fiscal year. However, Mr. Pena endorsed the Department's current 
dual track strategy--

[[Page S1381]]

which will not result in the selection of a preferred option until 
fiscal year 1999--but, he also stated his intent to explore a new, 
third option. This is a recipe for disaster that will result in further 
delays and even more wasted taxpayer dollars.
  The Department should stop studying this issue and move forward with 
a decision. I believe that such a decision can and should be made this 
fiscal year and I will look toward the next Secretary of Energy to 
provide leadership in this area.
  These are two issues of deep concern to me and other members of the 
Armed Services Committee. I am looking for Mr. Pena to provide the 
Senate a clear answer on nuclear testing and demonstrate that he is 
willing to move more quickly on restoring tritium. It will be difficult 
for me to fully support Mr. Pena's nomination unless these issues are 
addressed.
  Let me state that while I am very concerned about these issues, I 
remain openminded regarding Mr. Pena's nomination. I have made 
available in room 228 of the Russell Building a copy of the hearing 
transcript and Mr. Pena's responses to advance policy questions and 
posthearing questions. I encourage my colleagues to review these 
materials. I am certain that they will find them highly useful in 
making an informed determination on Mr. Pena's pending nomination.

                          ____________________